MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Phase 1b, Multi-Center, Open-Label Study of Novel Combinations of CC-122, CC-223, CC-292, and Rituximab in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: CC-122-DLBCL-001

2016· article· en· W2597083162 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vincent Ribrag, Julio C. Chávez, Jason Kaplan, Umberto Vitolo, Jason C. Chandler, Armando Santoro, Paolo Corradini, Philippe A. Cassier, Ian W. Flinn, Ranjana H. Advani, Randeep Sangha, Iris Isufi, Vaishalee P. Kenkre, Patrick R. Hagner, Torsten Trowe, Anita K. Gandhi, Xiaoling Wu, Kristen Hege, Michael Pourdehnad, John Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRituximabTolerabilityMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchLymphomaIbrutinibRefractory (planetary science)PharmacologyAdverse effectOncologyClinical trialLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL remains an unmet medical need with no approved or standard therapy in the third-line setting. Several new promising classes of drugs are being developed based on emerging understanding of the molecular pathology of DLBCL. These include CC-122, a pleiotropic pathway modifier that promotes CRBN-dependent Aiolos and Ikaros degradation, CC-223, a potent selective ATP-competitive inhibitor of mTOR kinase, and CC-292, a highly selective irreversible-inhibitor of Btk. Early phase studies with these compounds indicated single-agent activity in B cell malignancies including DLBCL. CC-122-DLBCL-001 is a Phase 1b dose escalation and expansion study of CC-122, CC-223 and CC-292 administered orally as doublets, and as triplets in combination with rituximab (R), as well as a CC-122 plus R doublet, in subjects with high risk R/R DLBCL. Methods: The dose escalation phase of the study explores combinations of one or more doses for each novel agent using a modified 3+3 dose escalation design with higher dose cohorts including the addition of a fixed dose of rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV Q28 days. CC-122 1mg, 2mg, 3mg, or 4mg is given orally QD or for 5 out of 7 days/week (5/7d). CC-223 15mg, 20mg, or 30mg is given orally QD. CC-292 500mg is given orally BID. Subjects were treated until progression or intolerable side effects. Study endpoints were: safety, tolerability, PK, PD and preliminary efficacy [overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR)]. Subjects were considered efficacy evaluable if they received at least one cycle of treatment and had one post-baseline tumor assessment. Peripheral blood PD biomarkers on treatment were compared to baseline levels by flow cytometry for CC-223 mTOR pathway targets p4EBP1 and pAKT and CC-122 target Aiolos. CC-292 500mg BID was previously demonstrated to result in >90% Btk receptor occupancy at 24 hours (Blood 2013 122:4169). Results: As of May 02, 2016, a total of 102 subjects were enrolled into the ongoing dose escalation phase of the study. The median no. of prior anti-lymphoma regimens was 3 (range, 1-10), 30% had prior ASCT and 30% were refractory to any prior therapy. Arm A (CC-122 + CC-223 +/- R) enrolled 31 subjects (28 treated) on 5 dose levels. As of the data-cutoff, the MTD had not been established. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (14%), diarrhea (18%), and rash (11%). Arm B (CC-122 + CC-292 +/- R) enrolled 28 (27 treated) subjects on 5 dose levels. The MTD was determined to be CC-122 1mg 5/7d + CC-292 500mg BID + R. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (37%), thrombocytopenia (22%), anemia (11%) and febrile neutropenia (15%) Arm C (CC-223 + CC-292) included 14 enrolled (all treated) subjects on 2 dose levels. A tolerable dose demonstrating sufficient PD biomarker inhibition was not established. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (14%), thrombocytopenia (29%) and diarrhea (14%). Arm D (CC-122 + R) included 29 subjects enrolled (28 treated) on 5 dose levels. As of the data-cutoff, the MTD had not been established. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (32%). Generally, response rates of interest were noted in Arms A, B and D (Table 1). ORR increased at higher dose levels and responses were durable. Preliminary PD data (Table 2) demonstrated differential effects of CC-223 20mg dose on p4EBP1 inhibition between Arms A and C and differential effects of low and high dose CC-122 dosing on Aiolos inhibition between Arms A, B and D. Preliminary PK analysis for drug-drug interactions will be presented. Conclusions: Preliminary data from this ongoing novel-novel dose escalation study indicate that safe and tolerable combinations of CC-122 with CC-223, CC-292, and/or rituximab can be achieved. Combination effects on toxicity, efficacy and PD biomarkers were seen. The observed signals of efficacy are encouraging in this R/R DLBCL population and will be further explored in dose expansion of selected arms at the optimized doses. Disclosures Ribrag: Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Esai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArgenX: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Kaplan:Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Vitolo:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Santoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Corradini:Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gentium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Cassier:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Merck Serono: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria; FortySeven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sutro: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stanford University: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sangha:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Eli-Lilly: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trowe:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hege:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pourdehnad:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kuruvilla:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Non-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207